I completely agree with what you and Alexy suggest. I've since refactored my
code accordingly so that an exception would not be thrown while inside of an
exception. But, that does not answer my original question. I asked about
submitting a feature request that would simply provide more information in
the unfortunate event that anybody's code inadvertantly throws an exception
while in an exception, and whether or not it would be advantageous to do so,
or if work was already being done on this very issue.
The current error provides no information at all (e.g., no file name or line
number of the offending exception), which in some cases makes it nearly
impossible to debug. My apologies if I was not clear enough in my first
e-mail. :)
On Nov 22, 2007 12:21 AM, Evert | Rooftop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Perfect code should catch every exception. If your code is at a point
> where exceptions can be thrown, you should be using catch to actually
> catch the exception and handle the exception appropriately.
>
> set_exception_handler should in fact only be used to spot a bug in your
> code.. A bug being in this case, not catching an expected exception. Its
> the last fallback.. If you really need complex code tied to your
> exception handler, then use a try..catch block there too..
>
> Evert
>
--
It looked like something resembling white marble, which was
probably what it was: something resembling white marble.
-- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"
